American politics

Arizona and immigration

Arizona, rogue state

Here is an early version of my column, which will appear in this week's paper.

THE United States has a GDP per head of $46,000. Mexico's is $8,000. So it is not surprising that millions of Mexicans have entered America illegally in search of a better life. A common estimate of the total number of illegals in the United States is 11m—roughly the population of Ohio. In these circumstances, you would think, America needs an agreed policy on immigration and a set of laws to match, with both the policy and laws being written by Congress in Washington. But that would require some responsible behaviour by politicians. Many have instead either abdicated responsibility or gone out of their way to act irresponsibly, dumping the issue in the laps of the courts and the police.

All this came to a head this week over Arizona's law SB1070. This law had divided the nation. Supporters saw it as a long-overdue bid by a state to arrest and drive out illegal immigrants, a job they believe the federal government has wilfully neglected. Liberal America portrayed it as a draconian measure that would lead to racial profiling and worse, passed by a state legislature which Harper's magazine said recently was composed “almost entirely of dimwits, racists and cranks”. On July 28th, the day before 1070 came into effect, Susan Bolton, a federal judge, responded to a lawsuit brought by the federal Department of Justice by putting a block on the most controversial parts of the law. Better to stick with the status quo, she said, than risk putting “a distinct, unusual and extraordinary” burden on legal resident aliens in Arizona.

What the law says, and what it doesn't

Ms Bolton's ruling merely postpones the day of reckoning for 1070, which in due course may have to go to the Supreme Court. Barack Obama said in April that the law raised the spectre of Hispanic Americans being harassed when they took their children for ice cream. Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law, retorts that it explicitly prohibits racial profiling. To add to the complexity, the Department of Justice's lawsuit—one of several brought against 1070—is not even based on the question of racial profiling. Its argument is that by legislating on immigration Arizona has trespassed on federal authority and violated the supremacy clause of the constitution.

The plea of its supporters in Arizona is: read the bill for yourself. The law's final text does not in fact allow the police to stop and investigate the immigration status of just anyone out buying ice cream for their children. Only after they have stopped, detained or arrested somebody while enforcing some other law or ordinance, and only when there is “reasonable suspicion”, are the police required to investigate whether the person is an illegal alien. Even then, they “may not consider race, colour or national origin”. As with any complex law, however, the text gets the layman only so far. To take just one example, the police may not consider race, colour or national origin “except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution”. The law school of the University of Arizona concludes that 1070 is open to a range of interpretations, and that whether it leads to racial profiling will depend, in part, on how the police choose to read it.

No need to step deeper into this legal warren. At bottom the argument between Arizona and its critics is political. The stated aim of 1070 is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants, mainly by enforcing federal laws which local politicians accuse the federal government of neglecting. Although Mr Obama is in fact deporting more illegals (a total of about 400,000 a year) than George Bush did, that cuts little ice in Arizona because people know his eventual hope (or at least the one he dangles in front of Hispanic voters) is to give illegals a pathway to citizenship, not kick out as many as possible. Mr Obama's policy was also Mr Bush's, and is probably the only humane way forward. But in Arizona “amnesty” has been turned into a dirty word.

Why? It is too glib to say from afar that the people of Arizona are dimwits, racists and cranks. After all, 1070 enjoys support throughout the United States, including in states where Hispanics do not make up nearly a third of residents and 41% of schoolchildren, where the population has not come close to doubling since 1990, and which have not just seen a high-octane property boom end in such a devastating bust. Much of Arizona's talk about violent crime is exaggerated (the crime rate is falling), but it is true that its porous border has turned it into America's chief corridor for people- and drug-trafficking from Mexico. Locals say the federal government could do much more to police the border, and are incredulous when they are told it is “impossible”.

Like any state, Arizona has its bigots. But its politics are more nuanced than they seem. The state produced the conservative Barry Goldwater but also the liberal Mo Udall. Both the state's senators are Republicans, but five of its eight congressmen are Democrats. Michael Crow, the president of Arizona State University and an opponent of 1070, calls it a “fantastic, roiling, innovative state, characterised by individualism, entrepreneurship, and openness to new people and new ideas.”

How then did Arizona whip itself into its present froth? You cannot blame it all on the politicians: they only go with the wind. But those seeking re-election this November bent like straw. Governor Brewer was floundering until she signed 1070, whereupon her ratings soared. She fed the immigration panic with tall stories about beheadings in the desert. John McCain, Arizona's senior senator, who faces a primary challenger running hard against illegal immigration, dropped his reform ideas and joined the calls to secure the border first. As for Mr Obama, nothing could be surer to inflame Arizona (while securing his own Hispanic base) than to bring a federal lawsuit against the state. America's immigration wars are expanding into the vacuum caused by the absence of a federal policy. They will rage until it is filled.

This is an excellent and professional article. Not once did the author refer to people as "illegal." Being an undocumented immigrant is an "adminstrative violation" of US Immigration law, which means that it is unlawful, but not criminal.

That was a major point ofcontroversy in Arizona's most recent draconian measure: to make it "illegal" (i,e. a crime) to be here undocumented (a civil violation).

In addition, I'd like to say that calling someone "illegal" is considered the same as using the 'N' word to refer to African-Americans. It's in poor taste, and we as a nation along with the rest of the world settled the acceptable terminology in the 1980s. One should use the term "undocumented migrant" to show s/he has no personal hatred, bias or prejudice, and/or xenophobia toward immigrants (whose status may range from tourist, to seasonal, to seeking work and/or to reunite families, to refugee and/or exile for the purpose of survival). Undocumented migrants are not a single race, class, or status.

You comment "tall stories about beheadings in the desert". I always thought "tall stories" was a description used for something that was untrue. That is clearly not the case here.
You comment "into the vacuum caused by the absence of federal policy". There are plenty of laws on the books today, including the requirement that legal immigrants keep a form of identification with them at all times. The issue is not an absence of policy, it is an unwillingness to apply that policy.

This is an economics magazine, so let´s turn this on it´s head. Cheap labour. Why would I pay more, were I business owner in AZ, for a white face instead of a brown one, given that the expecations of income are that much higher?

You can build as many fences as you want, supposedly "individualistic and capitalist" AZ, but you´re not going to block out the market. If the labour is cheaper, it will come.

The US has a GDP per head of $46,000. Mexico’s is $8,000. As such, Mexicans will not stop pouring across the border until the GDP per head in the US goes down to $8,000. At the rate they are crossing the border, coupled with the spinelessness of our politicians to take any action, it won't be long before we are at parity. I give it another 15-20 years, if that.

As I recall Germany behaved like Arizona from the beginning, both supported by majority of Germ and wealthy Jews. Otherwise Hitler wouldn't be so powerful able to initiate a WWII and campaigned a genocide crime.

@ radwrite...the problem is, a lot of people disagree that illegal immigration is a bigger problem than racial profiling. Seems like a whole hell of a lot of the problems in modern America stem directly from race relations.

And even if the federal government is likely to fix the problem (which I agree it isn't), it hardly makes sense to support a law that can only serve to precipitate more problems and make everything worse. And after all, the root of the problem isn't the feds. It's the employers (eg. Arizonans) who hire aliens without documentation. If other, pissed-off Arizonans want to solve the problem, they should start there.

The author would do well to consider what the writer of Democracy in America noted a few weeks ago:
"I refuse to call human beings "illegals". They themselves are not illegal. They do not exist illegally; they emigrated illegally. It is the action, not the person, that is illegal, much like it is the sin, not the sinner, that is supposed to be rejected."

....and what happens to a US citizen who is exercising his right not to carry 'papers' or id when he is 'lawfully detained' under 'suspicion' and the officer 'suspects' he might be an illegal immigrant?

What other legal activities which break no law is it legal to be arrested for? I'm curious. This seems to be the only one.

This law isn't a Nazi law. Those comparisons aren't useful for debate. There's a huge difference between "laws that will lead to accidents involving lawful minorities, for which the officers are legally accountable" and "laws intended to suppress, isolate, and punish lawful minorities."

But the law is flawed, and the judge was right to grant the injunction against the two most heated parts. But even among conservative lawyers, we knew this would be the outcome.

Just like a state can't decide that the IRS isn't punishing tax evaders enough and decide to enforce the Federal Tax Code itself. And just like states can't decide federal enforcement of patents is crummy, and enforce it themselves.

AZ can collaborate at any time with government agencies to enforce immigration laws. It chose not to. Ironically, defenders of this law cite these provisions as if it allows them to unilaterally pass laws identical to the Federal laws and enforce them. In doing so, they overlook the obvious: AZ chose the more antagonistic approach because it was a more favorable political strategy than would the more effective -- but silent -- cooperative effort.

Population projections of states close to Mexico indicate that somewhere in the near future they will reach 50% of population with Hispanic origin of some sort. Let current politicians enjoy the current environment, they are just antagonising a very probable future while avoiding measures that favor social integration.

As one of the Unions potentially affected pointed out recently, you can't accuse immigrants of taking away American jobs because Americans don't want to take them. If that's the legitimate excuse for cracking down, it doesn't really stand up to examination.

Which leaves a sort of subcutaneous racist fear of encouraging more crime as an explanation for not wanting to open a path to eventual citizenship.

However, while a more valid argument might be the initial cost of extending normal social services to non-contributors, any number of studies focus on the generally conservative catholic roots of immigrants from the Americas and on a work ethic rooted in family values. Younger contributors to Social Security would help stave off the next funding crisis and expand the premium pool for universal healthcare, increasing its affordability.

The true underlying irrational objection however is a reluctance to move from a nation of WASPs to one of BRCs (Brown Roman Catholics), observant or not, move up the demographic scale and to see a rising tide float bumboats as well as yachts.

"Michael Crow, the president of Arizona State University and an opponent of 1070, calls it a “fantastic, roiling, innovative state, characterised by individualism, entrepreneurship, and openness to new people and new ideas.”"

What did you expect him to say, "Arizona is a terrible place full of dimwits and bigots, and I wish I could find a job somewhere else."?

A criticism: you say, "No need to step deeper into this legal warren." Not a good description of the reality. You spend much of the preceding paragraphs describing political interpretations of the law when those don't matter. What matters is what the judge says about the constitutionality of the various sections. I've read the order and Judge Bolton's findings are quite comprehensive about the likelihood that the sections enjoined are unconstitutional. Feel free to cast the debate about the law in political terms but don't construe the political arguments as though they carry weight. The point is that whatever one thinks about immigration or about this law, the matter is Constitutional and that is interpreted by the court. In other words, you make a kind of fundamental error about the American system that conflates politics with judicial authority. It is absolutely of no account how an Arizona politician wants to construe the meaning of this law but you put that kind of political position on near par with the ruling of the federal judiciary and that's not our system.

BTW, Judge Bolton's ruling is best understood by looking at the only new crime she left standing. That was the one which makes a state crime out of knowingly helping or harboring an illegal. The distinction is that the state is not criminalizing the federal status of citizenship. She enjoined, for example, the new state crimes of not applying for papers (or carrying them), of applying for work though illegal. Those crimes depend on taking federal status and turning it into a state crime, that being illegal under US law becomes a crime under Arizona law. Your statement that the requirement to check status was rejected because it burdens legal immigrants is only part of the story and a relatively small one at that.

Judge Bolton also enjoined the most ridiculous section, the one which said a person could be arrested if the officer somehow thought the person had committed a crime that would be a deportable offense.

"Sorry, but if the US truly wants a free and fair trade area like the EU, then it should support the free movement of people, money and goods.

You want to end illegal immigration? Then simple, make it LEGAL. Allow Mexicans and Canadians to live, work and pay taxes anywhere in the US."

Would that it were feasible. But EU members avail themselves of freedom of movement between countries that have passed certain governance and economic stability requirements. I doubt Mexico, with its surging political and economic stability, would be admissible under those current standards. The lawlessness is partly why the Americans on the border are scared of Mexican immigration but not Indian, European, or Chinese.

In the end we need a combination of greater border control (including controlling guns into Mexico) with intelligent policy that enables more legal immigration and more flexibility. The only question is getting it to happen when AZ's law has turned 60+% of my voting confreres rabid.